From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Aug 25 2005 - 18:25:37 BST
Hi David --
> We, are we not, all individuals, we have that in common? What makes us
> different is that my other is the whole world less myself, whilst yours
> is the whole world less yourself. We are different by this small factor,
> i.e one person different in the whole world of what is our unique other.
> Of course as an individual we have access to different possible futures
> that we can freely bring into being (I could have beans or steak for
dinner)
> you may only have ham or eggs in your fridge (you could have a more
> profound example). This is life, we are born -giving us a unique
perspective
> on all that is other, and we make choices given our unique openness to
> a massive range of possible futures (I could have been a contender you
> know).
I agree with this general concept, except that I would put the disparity in
your reality perspective in a different place. You slight the difference
between "myself" and "yourself" as "a small factor", while suggesting that
there is a "whole world" of difference between selfness and otherness.
Considering that what we both call "the world" is experiential (i.e.,
phenomenal) and common to both of us, what is "unique" in this epistemology
is not the particular world-view or perspective of otherness but the "I"
that experiences it. I think this is what Pirsig has missed by failing to
account for individuality in his Quality=Reality theory.
Yes, we are all human; but we are EACH individual. The difference between
the subjective you and the subjective me is absolute, while the difference
between your other-perspective and mine is only dimensionally different at
most. Are we not both experiencing essentially the same universe? My
experience therefore has a "commonality" with yours; it is empirically
universal. Does such commonality exist between your self-awareness and
mine? Only descriptively. In other words, when you remove all the
experiential factors that constitute your cognizance of the other, you are
left with the "proprietary you" -- your desires, values, and free will.
This proprietary self-awareness is non-transferable. In essence, we are
*absolutely different* entities. Therein lies the singularity or
"uniqueness" of individual existence.
> We are a point of contact between what is (singular & pretty unknowable)
and
> what can be (and most of which never is). What else is there? SQ
represents
> the past and order, DQ the future and the creative. Some SQ is self, some
is
> other, some DQ emerges from the self, some from the other.
What you seem to be saying is that SQ continually evolves into DQ. If this
is a Pirsigian concept, I haven't seen it before. Could you quote me the
scripture on this?
> Seeing self and other as both SQ and DQ shows their unity. How else would
we
> ever make any sense of experience and others? Is this a dualism of SQ &
DQ?
> Not really, what is DQ only the fact that SQ appears and disappears
without a
> trace. Take a man, mush his brain a bit and he is not much more than an
animal,
> mush some more & get a vegetable, kill him and he is a material body, let
him rot
> and he is reused as organic material and then just inorganic waste or just
burnt for > energy. All the complex levels of SQ disappear into nothing.
You realize, of course, that this is a distinctly materialistic view of
reality. It implies that the individual self is nothing more than a brain
and its identified biological organism. Are you content with that
definition?
> But a pile of atoms have the POTENTIAL given a certain special set of
> circumstances (suns, worlds, water, dna, food, schools, etc etc) to become
a
> human being, this is what we mean by DQ, the potential SQ available to
> organise energy. DQ is the potential that exists in the relationship of a
Ham to his
> Other.
>
> At a lower level an atom has DQ potential with its even larger other of
the
> whole cosmos. A Ham embodies a certain realised potential of lots of
> atoms, to reach a higher level of organisation and potential.
Well, if "hamming up" your concept is meant to be entertaining, it works;
but it's entirely without metaphysical foundation. The "organization of
energy" whereby Ham's life achieves direction and purpose vs. a dynamic,
unpredictable otherness is Ham's alone. Ham doesn't glean such potential
from a pile of atoms or by parceling out his DQ (future) from his SQ (past).
Wherever did you come up with that idea? I've seen a lot of ontologies
construed to get around the individual self, but this one takes the cake!
> You see the immediate potential of an atom is X, the immediate potential
> of a Ham is super-X. Potential and awareness are clearly linked. A Ham
> aware of his potential is much more intelligent than an atom aware of its
> immediate potential. Also a Ham's awareness of potential is less
> immediate than that of an atoms I would suggest. You may have plans
> for next year, I doubt an atom has. The error of materialism is that it
> has not taken account of the reality of the possible/potential and failed
> to recognise the richness of the bevaviour of so-called things.
I think you're pulling my leg, David; or perhaps I should say, tickling my
Hambone.
Anyway, have fun,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 25 2005 - 23:55:12 BST